Starbucks workers are suing the company for not compensating them for the cost of replacement clothes after changing the dress code.
I hope they win.
This seems like such a trivial expense for Starbucks. If they want the employees to wear a uniform, the least they could do is freaking pay for the uniform.
To be fair:
“As part of this change, and to ensure out partners were prepared, partners received two shirts at no cost,” the company said Wednesday.
Well, OK. So you already give them two shirts and an apron. Is it really that much to ask you throw in a couple pairs of pants and shoes too?
Brooke Allen, a full-time student who also works at a Starbucks in Davis, California, said she was told by a manager in July that the Crocs she was wearing didn’t meet the new standards and she would have to wear different shoes if she wanted to work the following day. Allen had to go to three stores to find a compliant pair that cost her $60.09. Allen has spent an additional $86.95 on clothes for work, including black shirts and jeans.
$150 is a lot for a part-time Starbucks worker. It is not a lot for the company. Buy those things at scale, issue them to employees, and it’d probably be more like $50/employee in costs.
It comes as the company is trying to reestablish a warmer, more welcoming experience in its stores.
Yeah…“you can wear any color you want, as long as it’s black, and you pay for it” isn’t going to enhance that atmosphere very much. Baristas who can’t wear clothes they like, and are now struggling to pay their bills because of this unnecessary change, are hardly going to be very warm and welcoming…
I worked for Starbucks in college, and overall it was actually a really nice experience — except for the dress code (which, at that time, is the same as the new one… I missed the in-between period in which they relaxed it quite a bit). The “third place” philosophy back in the day really made a difference and provided community gathering places. That they lost that was because they over-expanded too fast, pivoted to digital drive-thru sales during COVID, and never kept up with the rise in newer neighborhood coffee shops either in atmosphere or in quality. Not because their employees wore other colors.
I find it hard to believe that Allen doesn’t own at least one pair of pants, and why did she pay so much for shoes? she only needed “dress” shoes, not designer shoes. Could feasibly find cheap pair at Goodwill
I can easily imagine that it could be hard to find shoes to fit if one’s feet don’t happen to be one of the more popular sizes. And perhaps the pants she already has don’t fit the new code.
Have you bought shoes recently? The last sneakers i bought were more than $100. The last time i bought dress shoes i didn’t see anything for less than $50, and that was a while ago.
And i can’t imagine finding shoes that fit at goodwill.
The dress code required specific styles of pants that many young adults wouldn’t necessarily have, especially these days.
Not sure about how it is now, but when I worked there, they required specific styles of shoes too, and partnered with a few shoe manufacturers because they are expensive. Even with an employee discount, it wasn’t easy to afford them on a part time Starbucks salary.
I can’t imagine finding shoes that last at Goodwill, the Salvation Army, or any other thrift shop.
No. You don’t want to be standing a full shift on shoes that are ill fitting or so worn as to not provide any support.
Work shoes are crucial to performance. IMHO
I hear they’ve been expanding into some new old locations recently.
Curiously, the BEST shoes I’ve even owned came from thrift stores. Old folks who bought shit when it was actual quality die off and their stuff end up there. Had a pair of Timberlands (Made in USA!) and some Top-Siders that were real leather. None of this China Crap.
ISTR that California labor law requires the employer either to provide required clothing or reimburse employees’ purchases of required clothing. Starbucks will lose, at least in California.
A pair that fits and look good and are the right color and are suitable for standing & working and available in her town, by her next shift? Come on.
You think $60 is a lot? The Skechers I bought from their outlet store last week cost more like $80, and I don’t think anyone considers Skechers to be a “designer” brand. Honestly what she paid sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
This is just one of those decisions that leaves me baffled. I understand Starbucks wants to save a little money, but did anyone at the company consider the optics of this decision? Did anyone consider say, “Hey, do you think this might make the company look bad to consumers?” I hope the employees win.
My impression is that Starbuck is generally a pretty decent employer in many respects - such as providing benefits, contributing to education…. Seems out of step with that ethos to not at least say, “We’ll give a $25 credit each paycheck for 6 months to help defray the costs of new clothes/shoes.”
As long as you don’t unionize.
Exactly. @fedman1 : have you ever worked a job which required you to be on your feet all day, largely standing, or walking only short distances (i.e., back and forth behind a sales counter)? Some people are blessed with physiologies which allow them to do that while wearing cheap shoes, and not suffering any issues, but for most people, having ill-fitting or unsupportive shoes while working such a job will give them foot issues and back issues. Not every “dress shoe” is appropriate for such work, and inexpensive shoes are unlikely to provide sufficient support and fit.
And, this. It is possible to buy cheap shoes at Walmart, or find them at Goodwill, but they are likely to be crap. $60 or $80 for a pair of good (not “designer”) shoes is not outrageous in the slightest.
Seriously. Designer shoes are more like $300 a pair.
I’ve been recently donating my “fat clothes” that are not too worn and are really good quality. It makes me happy to think that someone at the thrift store will make a “score.” Shoes? I only donate about half the pairs I no longer wear. Even quality ones are usually too worn or they’re worn in such a way that they’ll be a bad fit even for someone who wears my size.
The Lil’wrekker just paid nearly $500 for a pair of frou frou ??somebodyfamous brand boots.
Yeah, $60 ain’t designer. Sneakers have been over that price for many moons.
But no counter worker on a hourly job should be obligated to buy uniforms and shoes if it’s required to work there. Bad news Starbucks. This is gonna make you the bad guy.
I wouldn’t work there if I couldn’t wear crocs, in the first place. Why all the croc hate?
They are perfect for restaurant work and nurses. Both kinds of places hate them for no reason I can figure out.
Typically, in health care and food service, you’d have to buy Croc’s special line with no holes and with a closed heel.